A place that prioritizes profit over care has worse care service? Never would have guessed the outcome.
But they had better profits, so it’s worth it. Unless you’re sick or poor, in which case who cares
I’m shocked. Shocked!
Well, not that shocked.
Actually, we all saw this coming.
Capitalism ruins everything it touches.
Many of these hospitals were capitalist before the takeover too – they just were beholden to local owners rather than big national firm owners.
Local ownership is a VERY powerful check on the power of capital. Communities can hold sway over owners beyond what is reflected the general ledger of the business. And one of the reasons big national brands are good at out-competing local business is precisely BECAUSE they can ignore these social costs – even externalize them – and reap further profit for the exercise.
Even if you’re anticapitalist as fuck, this is why it is still important to buy and support local business whenever possible. Because the less local the business is, the less it cares about its customers and employees’ welfare.
And when local owners get greedy and want to sell to big firms, it’s very important to hit them with as much social punishment as possible. Friends don’t let friends sell their businesses to hedge funds.
Local ownership can cut both ways. Local businessmen reach a certain level of wealth and power and can essentially take over the entire town. It’s how you end up with situations like the Murdaughs.
However you look at it, the overconsolidation of wealth always has negative impscts.
Bruh, the point is literally to make money. Of course care will be compromised.
Related:
No fuckin shit.
It’s almost like privatizing public services is, somehow, a bad idea. But, but, but… capitalism…
I don’t know, I’m starting to get the sneaking suspicion that “good” and “profitable” aren’t synonyms. It’s almost as if there is often a financial incentive to make things worse…
Right. Like they deliberately make good things into shit. I wish there was a good term for this phenomenon.
hmm, if we follow the example like “desertification”, how about “shittification”?
I’ll take No-brainers for $100, Alex
Just a reminder that the point of researching the validity of things we intuitively know to be true is to provide the empirical data and expert analysis that can be used in, say, legal decisions or legislative processes.
empirical data … legislative processes.
Haha good one. The only data that matters to those in charge is what makes them more money, and the business friends more money and the lobbyists more money. Other data is basically irrelevant with the current asshiles that are in charge.
In other news, water is wet.
Privatisation is never the answer.
It’s not even feelings… Their missions are diametrically opposed. Hippocratic oath vs returns to shareholders should be regulated
Staff gets hours cut -> Less antimicrobial stewardship
-> Rise in infections -> :O
But corporate ownership is where most companies go to enshittify and die
I remember reading about this in an architectural monthly like 10 years ago or more:
It didn’t matter how “high-end” the building they were constructing was, they were always using the cheapest building materials available and long-term viability of the structure was a sincere afterthought.
